Dismissed

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. v. sree sree srinivas construction

DRAT4 Sept 2024REGULAR APPEAL/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the secured creditor. The court upheld the lower court's order granting interest at 6% p.a. on the excess sale proceeds lying with the appellant as they failed to transfer the amount to the borrower after auction and adjustment of dues.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to comply with the lower court order.

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. versus sree sree… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2024)

¶1

Reportable/ Not Reportable

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

(Appeal No. 99 of 2024)

¶4

(Arising out of I.A. No. 944 of 2022 in S.A.I.R. 1205 of 2022 in DRT—II Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

CHAIRPERSON

¶7

HDB Financial Services Limited, having its Branch office at 1^st Floor, D. No. 1-8-616/1, Shree Balaji PSR Tower, Begumpet Prakash Nagar, Hyderabad – 500016 and also at 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Hemalatha Mansion, 7-1-397/111 & 112, SR Nagar, Hyderabad – 500016.

¶8

…Appellants

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

1. M/s Sree Sree Srinivas Construction, represented by its partner, Katta Cotessor Rao, residing at H. No. 8-2-676/1/D/12, Road No. 12, Sri Ram Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034.

¶11

Smt. Jayalaxmi Katta, wife of Katta Cotessor Rao, residing at H.No. 8-2676/1/D/12, Road No. 12, Sri Ram Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034.

¶12

Mrs. Mateen Ansari, wife of Mohd. Habeeb Shams Ansari, residing at D. No. 8-2-672, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the parties Ms. Tutul Das Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. JUDGMENT : On 4^th September, 2024

¶15

¶16

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶17

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

2. Instant Appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Learned DRT II Hyderabad in I.A. No. 944 of 2022 arising out of S.A.I.R. No. 1205 of 2022 (Sree Sree Srinivas Constructions versus HDB Finance Service Ltd.) wherein interest at @ 6% per annum simple was allowed on excess sale proceeds of Rs.2,46,37,408/- which is lying with the Appellants.

¶19

3. It appears from the record that the secured assets were mortgaged with the Appellants which were sold on 30^th October, 2019 for an amount of Rs.6,09,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 3,62,62,592/was due against the Respondent borrower which was deducted from the bid amount. An amount of Rs. 2,46,37,408/- was the surplus amount lying with the Appellants. On 25^th January, 2020 an intimation was sent by the Appellants to the Respondents about the surplus amount. Further it was stated that some articles in the property are lying with the Authorised Officer. Hence, the Respondent was asked to collect the same from the Authorised Officer.

¶20

4. S.A.I.R. No. 1205 of 2022 was withdrawn by the SARFAESI Applicants. Accordingly, leave was granted to withdraw the same by the DRT vide order dated 26.06.2024. 5. An order for refund of the excess amount was also made. An objection was raised that since the SARFAESI

¶21

¶22

Applicants have not collected the amount despite intimation, hence, they are not entitled for any interest. 6. Admittedly, amount was lying with the Appellants herein. If intimation was given to the borrower to collect the amount and the amount was not collected, the same could have been transferred OnLine to the account of the SARFAESI Applicants which was not done. It is not a case of forfeiture of the amount under the Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Rather, it is a case wherein auction sale was conducted. Demanded dues were adjusted. Thereafter, excess amount was lying with the secured creditor. It was the responsibility of the secured creditor to transfer the excess amount to the account of the borrower since sale took place and demanded dues were adjusted. When the secured creditor is enjoying the excess amount, definitely they are liable to make payment of interest to the borrower. Accordingly, Learned DRT has granted interest @6% p.a. simple which is in accordance with law. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Learned DRT II Hyderabad in I.A. No. 944 of 2022 arising out of S.A.I.R. No. 1205 of 2022 (Sree Sree Srinivas Constructions versus HDB Finance Service Ltd.) is confirmed. Appellant is hereby directed to make the payment as per the orders of the Learned DRT

¶25

¶26

within 30 days positively.

¶27

No Order as to costs.

¶28

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶29

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶30

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶31

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4^th day of September, 2024.

¶32

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶33

Dated: 4^th September, 2024

¶34

15/tp

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. v. sree sree srinivas construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. v. sree sree srinivas construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Motors Services Private Limited versus Tata Capital Financial Services

State Bank of India versus Ms Bengal Geo Services

Ms Sai Ram Krishna Motorbikes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Smt R Rama Devi @ Smt J Rama Devi versus tata capital financial services Ltd.

Rohit Kumar Jain versus Indian Bank

Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Private Limited versus Banga Lakshmi Ujala Business Private Limited